Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Sept 9: High Court dismissed the plea of a person challenging rejection of his ‘bail in default’ and order of extension of his remand in judicial custody by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (designated as NIA Court), Kupwara in Unlawful Activity case.
One Syed Irfan Abdullah of Laribal, Handwara challenged the orders of NIA court whereby his judicial remand on the request of the Investigating Agency was extended and his application for ‘bail in default’ was rejected. He was arrested with Rs 60 lakhs approximately which was hidden in a geyser on January 11 this year during a Naka Checking in the Braripora area of Handwara.
The appellant-Abdullah was arrested on 11.01.2023 in FIR No.06/23 registered in Police Station, Handwara under Section 13 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) UA (P) Act and was remanded to judicial custody from time to time.
It is on 11.04.2023, with the understanding that 90th day of remand was 11.04.2023, the appellant moved an application for default bail and on the same day the prosecution through its APP moved an application seeking extension of his remand for a further period of sixty days.
The report filed by the learned APP seeking extension of remand was taken up for consideration on 11.04.2023 and the NIA court vide impugned order dated 11.04.2023 remanded the appellant in judicial custody to be lodged in Sub Jail, Kupwara for a further period of six days. Since the remand of the appellant had been extended by the NIA Court vide order dated 11.04.2023, as such, the application moved by the appellant for default bail was dismissed by the NIA Court as infructuous vide order dated 12.04.2023.
The admitted case of both the sides that the investigating agency completed the investigation within the extended period of remand and presented the challan before the NIA Court. The appellant challenged both orders of NIA court on the ground that these are illegal and bad in law as the effect of extending his remand is beyond the period of ninety days.
His counsel contended that he was arrested on 11-01-2023 and, therefore, the ninetieth day of his remand was 11-04-2023 and not 12-04-2023, as has been provided by the NIA Court in its order dated 25.03.2023 and his application for ‘bail in default’ should have been accepted by the NIA court as the investigation in the case was not completed within stipulated period as is provided in the Act.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Rajesh Sekhri however said the requirement of principles of natural justice in the matter of grant of opportunity to the accused to oppose extension would be complied with once the accused is produced in the Court and is made aware that the Court is considering the request of the prosecution for extension of the remand.
It is for the accused to raise objection to such an application. However, if such an objection is raised in writing or orally, it is incumbent upon the Court granting extension to deal with it objectively. Such a hearing need not be an elaborate hearing nor is it incumbent upon the Court or the prosecution to provide a copy of the report filed by the Investigating Officer to the accused.
Court however concluded that the contentions of the counsel representing appellant-Abdullah is devoid of merit for the reasons that when the application for extension of remand was taken up by the Court, the appellant was present through virtual mode.
Follow our WhatsApp channel